Criminology: Classical and Positivist Theories - Coursework Example

Criminology: Classical and Positivist Theories

Introduction

Both the positivist and classical approaches towards criminality are significant crime deterrence models as they provide effective ways in which crime could be understood from a personal or social point of views. The emergence of the two approaches came at a time when scholars aimed at developing effective ways of addressing crime, starting from understating the min of the criminal, to developing the most effective solution to crime. The two approaches have different provision towards addressing crime, but also contain differences in how crime is viewed as approached. The effectiveness of the two approaches has seen them being used even in modern day criminal justice system.

The classical approach to criminology is based on the assumption that crime is choice out of a persona free will, and addressing the crime would require imposing punishments that would surpass the pleasure one gets from committing a crime. The approach mainly focuses on enabling a person to develop more preplanned thoughts before committing a crime based on the pain of the expected punishments, versus the pleasure in the committed crime. On the other hand, the positivist approach incorporates a scientific/statistical model in understanding and addressing crime. The model functions under the assumption that behavior is influenced by factors that may out of human control. The positivist approach is divided into biological and psychological positivism as different ways by which crime could be interpreted and addressed.

The two theories offer effective insights towards understanding crime, and its perpetrators. The paper seeks to address how the theories share or differ in addressing various issues in criminology. Specifically, the theories would be analyzed as the define crime prevention, offenders’ human nature, crime causes, the definition of crime and the effective response to crime.

History in Developing of the Criminology Theories

Understating crime under the classical theory came first and was at a time where civilization was not much experienced. The classical theory did not venture much in understanding the reasons behind ones action based on either social, biological or social factors. For this reason, addressing crime was assumed to be most effective if the punishment was severe enough to reduce the pleasure of the crime. The theory is created by the Cesare Beccaria who believed in the assumption that the actions of a person are mainly influenced by seeking pleasure, and avoiding pain. Consequently, making punishment for criminals severe, would make crime more painful and offer less pleasure.

The theory was, however, criticized as it did not allow for differentiation among criminals. The criticism led to the creation of the positivist approach. Positivist approach also emerged with increasing civilization which influenced understanding human beings as weak and vulnerable to external influences. The positivist theory at first, as developed by Cesare Lombroso, sought to identify the born criminal, biological features that could show a person likelihood to commit crime. The argument was not widely supported as social factors were realized to be more human influential factors. For instance, people living in poverty were realized to be more likely to commit crime. The same was realized among people who were not educated. For this reason, addressing crime would be easier if such influential factors were eliminated. In an argument by Larry under the positivist approach, it is assumed that educating people will in the long run reduce the number of criminals. From their development history, it is evident that classical and positivist approaches to criminology differ in their formation base, and the differences could be influenced by the time difference in which the two theories were developed.

On Human Nature

Classical scholars on criminology would define human nature as free will; a person is likely responsible for their own thoughts and hence their actions. The approach describes human nature as a strong personal feature that could not be externally influenced. Also, human nature is basically a person’s free will which is utilized without much influence. Eck and Julie are of the assumption that classical approaches to criminology view people as equal, and do not recognize the fact biological or social factors may exists in regards to influencing a person’s nature. The authors further asserts that understanding crime from this point of view directly blames a person for their actions, and criminal tendencies. Consequently, punishment should be directed towards changing the negative use of a free will by a person.

On the other hand, positivist criminology views human nature as the nature of a person developed based on social and biological factors. In this approach, the human nature is vulnerable to external influences towards being prone to crime. In an argument by Marcus positivist recognize the assumption that external factors may be superior in regards to influencing free will and human nature. The author further asserts that social and biological factors play a major role in determining the likelihood of a person to get involved in crime. For instance, uneducated people have been found to be more likely to be involved in crime as compared to educated people. Also, children reared in violent or unstable environments are more likely to take part in crime when compared to children developing in child-friendly environments. From the examples, it is evident that human nature is not influenced by choices made due to existing free will, but influenced by external factors that cause behavioral development.

On human nature, the classical and positivist approaches to criminology differ. The main differentiating feature is the argument of free will, and how human being are vulnerable to external influences. From a classical point of view, free will is voluntary and every person is responsible for the nature in regards to their probability to commit crime. Positivists, however, tend to believe that criminal behavior is involuntary as existing social or biological factors influence behavior adaption, hence human nature is also not influenced by free will. The two approaches provide effective arguments of human nature, but differ on its definition and its stability in regards to deterring external influences.

On Definition of Crime

Classicism defines crime as a violation of a contract recognized by all society members. The approach is of the assumption that existing in a society automatically ties a person to a social contract with all society members. For this reason, any behavior that goes against the social contract with the people is a crime. This is regardless of that legal codes exist that determine if an action is a crime or not. For this reason, legal codes may not define an action as a crime but if the action offends people in the society it could be described as a crime.

Positivist define crime as a behavior that is legally viewed as a crime by existing legal codes developed by the state. The approach bases the definition on that existing legal codes have statistically analyzed the view of the society on crime. For this reason, if a person offends the state that is crime. Corchado argues actions that may be socially undesired but do not go against legal codes cannot qualify as a crime. This is based on that people are different and the view on crime or undesired behavior is varying from one person to another. However, the existence of legal codes provide a common bar of defining crime.

The definition of crime under the two approaches is almost similar considering that they both consider the society to be the determining factor in defining actions to be criminal. However, they differ in that classicism does not consider actions against the state as crime, but actions against social codes in a society as crime. Positivist view actions against the state as crime, but actions against the social codes could only be criminal if they go against existing legal codes.

On Analysis of Crime

Under classicism theories, the analysis of crime is done based on actions of a person, and does not at any point consider the personal circumstances that may have influenced a person to commit a crime. For this reason, the model analysis of a criminal act is done by existing laws, and how the crime and punishments is defined. Person should receive the stated punishment by the law regardless of what might influence their actions. The approach also is of the assumption that the solution should not be based on a person’s circumstances, but punishing a person based on the weight of the crime committed. The Northern Ireland Mental Health Act of 1961, barred the use of mental disorder to influence the weight of punishment an offender could get in a court of law.

Alternatively, positivists’ analysis of crime is based on a person’s circumstances. Alexander argues that in this approach, the assumption of social, psychological or biological influences towards crime is considered during analysis and developing the best solution. For instance, under the approach a person with a mental disorder would not receive punishment required for the crime they committed. However, they will receive rehabilitation for the condition as the best way to find a solution to the personal circumstance. For this reason, the severity of the crime is not an important factor in analyzing crime. Also, the N. Ireland Mental Health Act allowed judges to consider mental health as a factor in delinquency.

The two criminology models heavily differ in how crime should be analyzed. Classicism is against the consideration of the fact that external influences may force a criminal events such as drug abuse or mental disorders. The approach analyses a crime based on the provided legal provision by the state. Differently the positivist approach view personal circumstances as important factors in understanding a criminal activity. For this reason, solution towards crime are based on how to enable a person to cope with factors that may influences their chances towards committing crime.

On Causes of Crime

Classical scholars view on causes of crime are based on rational motivation. The view is based on that crime is an individual choice that is reached based on what a person tends to perceive as benefits of crime. For this reason, irrational thinking or a person causes their behavior towards criminality. The model also argues that if the benefits of crime outweigh the pain of punishment, people would be more likely to make individual choices towards committing crime. For this reason, creating severe and immediate form of punishment that outweigh the pleasure of crime would the best way to fight against causes of crime.

Positivist theories, on the other hand, view causes of crime for a personal approach. The view is based on the assumption that people are vulnerable to external factor that may influence their negative behaviors. Specifically, the model views causes of crime to emanate from under socialization of a person. Under socialization in this case could be caused by biological, social, or genetic factors. In an example, it is more probable for a person reared in a family with a violent history to take part in criminal activities.

Classicism and positivism theories differ on what may be defined a causes of crime. Positivist theories views causes of crime as factors that may influence a person’s behavior such as genetic composition, as exposure to violence in their family setting. Consequently, understanding these factors would help deter people from crime. Classicism see causes of crime as rational motivation towards crime; the pleasure of crime outweighing the pain of punishment influence the conduct of people towards committing crime. For this reason, people should be punished with severity which would deter them from making irrational thoughts and hence committing crime.

On Response to Crime

From the classical view, the only response to crime is punishment. In an argument by Marshall et.al the classicism model is of the assumption that all crime of similar nature should be punished equally regardless of the persons taking part in the crime. In an example, if a women steals from a shop just to feed herself, and another women steals from the shop to feed her child, they should be punished equally. This rational view seeks to deter people from having criminal thoughts. In the case Hodgkins, R. v. the offender sough to appeal the sentence given as it was severe based on their crimes. The offender was accused of violent crime and shoplifting, and the courts dismissed the appeal, and stated even if the sentence was severe, it matched the weight of the crime. This sentence would help deter people from similar crimes.

Positivist theories response to crime is treatment of offenders. The view is based on that punishing a person for a crime may not help them in future as they external influences would still exist. For instance, jailing a mental unstable person would not deter them from committing crime in future. The model function under the assumption that crime is not influenced by personal choice, but by factors that may be reversed though treatment. For this reason, a child offender who passed through a violent family setting would benefit more from rehabilitation rather than punishment. Rehabilitation would enable them cope with the psychological factors that influences their thoughts in committing crime.

The response to crime differs from the definition offered by the two models. The classic approach view on response to crime is basically punishment regardless of the personal circumstances. On the other hand, positivist theories seek personal treatment as the best response to crime.

On Crime Prevention

Under the classicism theory, crime prevention can only be achieved through deterrence. Scholars developing the theory were of the assumption that fear is better than physical harm. For this reason, making punishment more painful than the pleasure of crime would deter people from criminal activities. In ancient societies, the approach was used as punishment were done publicly as people could fear undergoing the same. Consequently, they would refrain from committing crime. The theory provides that the punishment for a crime should be of equal eight as the crime in order to deter future offenders. In Leetham v Director of Public Prosecutions case, the court ruled that Leetham had abused drugs at their own preference before driving. For this reason, they are liable to receive the full punishment of the offense.

On the other hand, positivist theories prevention techniques are based on classification and diagnosis. Considering that the approach believes in crime as influenced by other factors, crime prevention should involve early detection of the factors are enabling people to develop self-control. Through self-control people can cope with issues that may influence their criminal nature. For instance, parents should rear the kids in a controlled environment free from violence, and other risk factors. In the approach, the kids would have more self-control and thus they will be less likely to commit crime. Also, a person abusing drugs is more likely to commit crime as they lack self-control. Through rehabilitation they would be able to stop abusing drugs, and develop self-control which would deter their criminal actions. As Stated in the Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Jervis & Anor the court proposed rehabilitation to help the offender deal with their relationship with drug addiction and crime. Also, in Heron v Plymouth City Council the city council sough to seek control measures in deterring Heron from committing crime or disturbing people. Heron was restricted from being in possession of property rather than his, as a way to control his involuntary need to handle stolen goods.

The theories view on crime prevention differ in that they both offer different approaches in which people become deterred to commit crime. The classical approach believes that the fear of known punishment would deter people from committing crime. On the other hand, positivist views argue that instilling self-control in people would be beneficial in helping cope with factors that may influence their criminal minds.

Conclusion

From the arguments presented, it is evident that the positivist and classicism theories to criminology share similar views, as well differ in the interpretation of crime. The two theories are similar in defining crime, as they cite undesired behavior towards the society and the state should be classified as crime. However, the theories differ in how crime should be addressed in regards to response, analysis and prevention. The classical approach uses punishment and fear to address and prevent crime as it described crime as a personal choice. Positivist theories seek to address, respond to, and prevent crime by creating a diagnosis that may help understand why people commit crime. From the information. Solution are then developed that may enable people to develop self-control and cope with social, biological and psychological factors that may influence their probability of committing crime.